Haryana

Sonipat

CC/176/2015

ASHISH S/O SH. RAJ SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. PAWAN EMPLOYEE OF HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

AMITA ARYA

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.176 of 2015

Instituted on: 29.05.2015                 

Date of order: 18.03.2016

 

Ashish son of Raj Singh, r/o H.No.171A, Masad Mohalla, Krishanpura, Sonepat.

…Complainant.           Versus

1.Pawan Employee of HDFC bank Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

2.The Manager, HDFC bank, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat.

 

                                      …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Kumar, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.RK Panchal Adv. for respondents.

 

Before-  Nagender Singh-President. 

          Prabha Wati-Member.

          D.V.Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint  against the respondents alleging therein that on the assurance/advised of the respondent no.1, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.25000/- as FDR for a period of one year with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and he received a policy bond of life insurance bearing no.16406271 dated 11.11.2013 and at that time, he came to know that the respondent no.1 has cheated the complainant. The complainant approached the respondent no.1, who assured that the policy will be transferred in the shape of FDR, but it was the false assurance as the respondents refused to return even a single penny and said that there is no FDR of the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

2.        In reply, the respondents have submitted that the complainant has contacted the respondent no.1 for the purchase of insurance policy and not the FDR.  The amount was deposited by the complainant for insurance policy.  The complainant has singed all the documents for the purchase of policy and no amount for FDR was ever deposited by the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the entire relevant documents available on the case file very carefully and minutely.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the respondents received the amount of Rs.25000/- from the complainant for the issuance of FDR for one year with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, but they have cheated the complainant as they have issued the life insurance policy to the complainant.

        On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that the complainant has contacted the respondent no.1 for the purchase of insurance policy and not the FDR.  The amount was deposited by the complainant for insurance policy.  The complainant has singed all the documents for the purchase of policy and no amount for FDR was ever deposited by the complainant.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with the regard to the deposit of Rs.25000/- by the complainant with the respondents. As per the respondent, the complainant has deposited the amount for the purchase of insurance policy and not the FDR.  In the present complaint, the respondent no.1 and 2 filed their joint reply through their counsel. But the respondent no.1 has not filed any affidavit to explain his status with the bank and in the complaint, the complainant has pleaded that the respondent no.1 is an employee of HDFC Bank. As per the affidavit filed by the respondent no.2, this fact has not been denied anywhere that the respondent no.1 is an employee of respondent no.2. In our view, the amount of Rs.25000/- has been got invested by the respondents by misleading the complainant and on fake grounds as well. So, in our view, the ends of justice would be fully met if the directions are given to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- to the complainant. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- (Rs.twenty five thousand) within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the above said amount shall fetch interest at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

Certified copy of this order be provided to

both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

Prabha Wati Member    DV Rathi Member     Nagender Singh

DCDRF SNP             DCDRF SNP         President, DCDRF

                                               SNP.

ANNOUNCED 18.03.2016